Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Lucern · 11-26-2004, 05:31 AM

Interesting advocacy on behalf of the devil Yorick [img]smile.gif[/img] I'll play the poor sucker who has to go up against him.

To advocate imperialism, one has to make an assumption: one's culture, belief structures, way of life, and/or religion is right or at least better than those which one seeks hegemonic domination over. You have to accept it to the point that you don't mind destroying a way of life you consider inferior. Fundamentalist (in a broad sense) belief in any faith that tells you that your way is the absolute truth has to affirm the assumptive declaration above. This is not to say, of course, that all who hold a view of cultural (et al.) superiority are also imperialists. It just seems a prerequisite.

I think it's worth noting that studies of sociology and anthropology - two different yet similar approaches to actually looking at human societies, including "our" (Western influenced permutations included) own, will always espouse change from within over coerced change from the outside; that's only in the rare event that a researcher thinks such an opinion based on an individual judgement is appropriate. These are generalizations, but we do have ways of qualitatively, if not quantitatively, studying societies.

So the short answer: So what if we're sure! It doesn't mean we're right. It NEVER means we're right. And who are "we" anyway? Certainty about the uncertifiable isn't enough for world-changing actions IMO. That would have to be determined less subjectively.

And I do feel the need to interject something into your post Yorick, so pardon my intrusion. Though it's evident you've studied missionary work and/or met missionaries, and though it's true that many did what anthropologists do in order to gain trust before having any success, I'd argue that at some point all missionaries (as well as people trying to assert economic hegemony) have to affirm the same basic assumption that imperialists must make. They can have a respect for the culture, learn the language, earn their trust, but at some point they have to assert their own culture as an alternative. To do this, and to care whether or not a potential convert chooses to pursue it, must mean that the missionary thinks his/her way is right. If not, then why would they be there? I acknowledge that this is different from making a blatant, conscious decision to change a culture perceived as inferior, but the end result of this particular equation remains the same.

[ 11-26-2004, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: Lucern ]

11-26-2004, 05:31 AM	#10
Lucern Quintesson Join Date: August 28, 2004 Location: the middle of Michigan Age: 43 Posts: 1,011	Interesting advocacy on behalf of the devil Yorick [img]smile.gif[/img] I'll play the poor sucker who has to go up against him. To advocate imperialism, one has to make an assumption: one's culture, belief structures, way of life, and/or religion is right or at least better than those which one seeks hegemonic domination over. You have to accept it to the point that you don't mind destroying a way of life you consider inferior. Fundamentalist (in a broad sense) belief in any faith that tells you that your way is the absolute truth has to affirm the assumptive declaration above. This is not to say, of course, that all who hold a view of cultural (et al.) superiority are also imperialists. It just seems a prerequisite. I think it's worth noting that studies of sociology and anthropology - two different yet similar approaches to actually looking at human societies, including "our" (Western influenced permutations included) own, will always espouse change from within over coerced change from the outside; that's only in the rare event that a researcher thinks such an opinion based on an individual judgement is appropriate. These are generalizations, but we do have ways of qualitatively, if not quantitatively, studying societies. So the short answer: So what if we're sure! It doesn't mean we're right. It NEVER means we're right. And who are "we" anyway? Certainty about the uncertifiable isn't enough for world-changing actions IMO. That would have to be determined less subjectively. And I do feel the need to interject something into your post Yorick, so pardon my intrusion. Though it's evident you've studied missionary work and/or met missionaries, and though it's true that many did what anthropologists do in order to gain trust before having any success, I'd argue that at some point all missionaries (as well as people trying to assert economic hegemony) have to affirm the same basic assumption that imperialists must make. They can have a respect for the culture, learn the language, earn their trust, but at some point they have to assert their own culture as an alternative. To do this, and to care whether or not a potential convert chooses to pursue it, must mean that the missionary thinks his/her way is right. If not, then why would they be there? I acknowledge that this is different from making a blatant, conscious decision to change a culture perceived as inferior, but the end result of this particular equation remains the same. [ 11-26-2004, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: Lucern ]